About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
are to buy the pentagon didn't show you any video of things that miss. that is bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war but infinitely more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave them a military briefing for the alicia pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles and things fly into windows. that was the percentage actually expended. so i don't think this is a revolution in military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration of just how proficient the united states was in waging war, especially can do this proficient adversary. but it also is a military affairs in a fundamentalist about is the car still has a boat here and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal and therefore the military plan made that involve smart and weapons were designed with a traditional military conclusion, which in truth is not revolutionary at all, getting the enemy to do what she wanted. i can't see it as fares. and getting assigned from the back right of time, but i do want to give -- >> yet, let randy
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
the government watching? >>brian: the government will provide life lock for the pentagon, which we offer now is some kind of protection because we don't want all our secret cables to be exposed by idiots like the one we just had -- >> that's different from what the president did the other day. the government has an obligation to protect the pentagon. the government does not have an obligation to protect you or fox news or me or "the new york times." so what's the government going to do? the government is going to share information with major internet providers. and pretty soon it's going to say to the internet providers, all that information we gave you about us, we now want information about you. we want to know about kilmeade's e-mails. we're worried about him. we want to know who he's pha*eulg -- e-mailing so we can keep him safe. baloney. protect the government, but leave the rest of us with privacy. if you're going to interfere with the internet, should it be done by the command of one person -- the president -- or should it be done after great national debate and the congress? >>gretch
is served until 2009, and works in the pentagon. our first call, on the republican line. caller: my daughter serves in the marine corps. i'm very proud of my daughter. if we take and put our people out of afghanistan, what is going to prevent these people from going back over -- coming back over to our country, and a glowing us up again? we may have gotten rid of osama bin laden. what about everybody else? we have to protect our people, whether it is in afghanistan, africa, or wherever. we cannot allow our people totally out of this country just because president obama says, they are muslims, they are my fellow men, my fellow religion, i want our people out of there. that is not right. i come over to our country and try to kill us. we need to stay over there and fight for our freedom. host: you bring up interesting points. basic idea we have in this country is that we get into wars, but we very rapidly lose the ability to support those wars, political perspective. we saw what happened in vietnam. if desert storm last longer, we would have seen the same thing there. we know what happened with
there and can be a very effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with as director of the c.i.a. and continue to work with in this capacity. and i always found him to be very responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations against al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is somebody a straight shooter, somebody who gives you his best opinion. he doesn't play games. he's someone who i think can really honestly represent the best protection of this country in that job. >> thank you very much. and i want to thank you for your forth right comments today about the sequester. ironically as what you said in your statement, it appears the greatest threat to the united states security is the united states congress. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. let me mention this, after senator nelson, the first round will be over. there may be a number of us who may want a few minutes on the second round and you two witnesses have been here for three hours and you may need a five or 10-minute break. do you want that following senator nelson or go
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)